Teaching Practices - The Intuitive Language Teacher

CLT Principle 5: Tasks – Part 3

Today we take a look at Tasks themselves.

Tasks are the theme of this chapter in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re On the Topic. The full title of the chapter is “Tasks Should Form the Backbone of the Communicative Curriculum”.

Obviously, VanPatten considers tasks not simply important but integral and central to Contemporary Language Teaching / Communicative Language Teaching. Of course, VanPatten does not mean the “Communicative Method” as it is often (mis)understood and practiced, i.e. Present – Practice – Perform.

To understand how Tasks can form the backbone of a curriculum, as well as why they should, we have to know what Tasks are. VanPatten provides a definition of Tasks, gives examples of Tasks, and contrasts Tasks with Activities and Exercises to help us understand what he means. He begins with the following statements about tasks:

Tasks are the quintessential communicative event in contemporary language teaching.

Tasks involve the expression and interpretation of meaning.

Tasks have a purpose that is not language practice.

The rest of the chapter is an elaboration, examination, and justification of those statements. At that, VanPatten does not address all possible Tasks or even all possible kinds of Tasks. He limits the discussion to those he considers best in contemporary language classes, admitting that he has a bias as a university professor.

The first Task that VanPatten presents is one he calls “At What Age?” It consists of three steps:
1. Write down at what age a person typically does certain activities. (A list of activities follows.)
2. Interview someone in class; ask the person the questions and write down the response.
3. Class discussion follows. The instructor polls the class about the answers students gave, has students aggregate the answers, and then introduces additional information from the most recent US census.

The second Task is called “For Your Instructor” and is for more advanced students. It, too, consists of three steps:
1. Students receive a sheet of paper with sentence frames to provide information to the professor about fellow students.
2. Students create questions to elicit the information requested. If they need help, they may ask the instructor. Whereas the “At What Age?” Task is intended for beginning learners and is highly scaffolded in the language area, this one requires students to create their own questions.
3. Students interview one another and write down the answers to provide information to the instructor.

What makes these Tasks? They contain the expression and interpretation of meaning, and there is a communicative purpose other than “to practice language”. In both cases, the purpose is cognitive-informational.

Although someone might focus on certain surface similarities – in both instances, students are asking (and answering) questions – the purpose and communicative element are entirely different for the Tasks as compared to the Exercises originally given. (See last week’s post.)

The Exercises do not focus on the interpretation and expression of meaning. In fact, as I noted last week, in the “Est-ce que …?” Exercise, meaning is utterly irrelevant and may, in fact, be a hindrance to the successful accomplishment of the exercise.

The purpose of the Exercises is to practice language.

This, then, is the difference between a Task and an Exercise:

A Task requires the expression and interpretation of meaning and has a communicative purpose other than language practice, (2017, p. 80)

whereas

An Exercise lacks any intent to express or interpret meaning and has the explicit purpose of practicing language. (2017, p. 84)

Here, VanPatten distinguishes between an Exercise and an Activity. In his original examples, the second one (“Interview your partner and find out what he or she did last night”) is an Activity. What’s the difference? An Activity is partially communicative. That is, expression and interpretation of meaning are necessary to the Activity, but it lacks a communicative purpose other than to practice language.

To review, here are the distinctions that VanPatten makes:

A Task focuses on expression and interpretation of meaning and has a communicative purpose other than to practice language.

An Activity at least seems to have a focus on expression and interpretation of meaning, but its purpose is to practice language.

An Exercise does not involve the expression and interpretation of meaning, and its purpose is to practice language.

VanPatten utterly rejects Exercises as a strategy for language acquisition. He also provides an explanation for why a thoughtful teacher might use them. Leaving aside the possibility that a teacher uses Exercises because they are in the textbook or because the teacher did Exercises in language class, VanPatten notes the following theoretical basis for including Exercises:

Since Exercises have the purpose of practicing language, the instructor who uses them must believe that practicing vocabulary or grammar is “how you learn it”. If this is a deliberate practice and not simply thoughtless implementation of the familiar, then the instructor must believe that language acquisition happens in a particular way, i.e. through conscious learning about the language. As VanPatten has shown, however, this is not how language is acquired. “We know that language acquisition happens as a complex, constrained process that involves input … and internal mechanisms …” (2017, p. 85)

I’ll close this week’s discussion with the following quote from VanPatten:

Exercises fail as events that promote or cause acquisition, because they do not account for the most basic sketch of acquisition we have constructed after almost four decades of research. In short, Exercises lack input and do not provide the kind of data the learning mechanisms need for creating language in the learner’s mind/brain. At best, they waste time that could be used doing other things in the communicative classroom. (2017, p. 85)

Note: I have followed VanPatten’s convention of capitalizing Tasks, Exercises, and Activities. This is, in part, to distinguish Activities from activities. The former (Activities) are specifically defined as having a partial communicative focus but a purpose of practicing language, i.e. a technical definition of the word; the latter (activities) are simply the different things we do in class, i.e. the general meaning of the word.

I believe this gives us plenty to think about, so next time I’ll take a look at the kinds of Tasks that VanPatten presents, how to work with Tasks, and the implications for language teaching.

CLT Principle 5: Tasks – Part 1

The full title of this chapter in Bill VanPatten’s book, While We’re On the Topic, is “Tasks Should Form the Backbone of the Communicative Curriculum”.

This post will be short because I am involved in a couple of language teachers conferences.

Let’s start with a set of can-do statements. Then we’ll know what to expect from VanPatten’s discussion. Rate yourself for each statement with one of the following: Yes, for sure; Sort of; Nope.

I can state the difference between an Exercise, an Activity, and a Task.
I can identify a Task when I see one.
I understand the difference between an input-oriented task and an output-oriented task.
I can state the difference between Tasks as drop-ins and Tasks as the goals of units.
I understand what it means to determine what students need to know and what they need to be able to do in order to be successful with a task.

Before reading this chapter in VanPatten’s book, these were my answers:

No
No
Sort of
No
Sort of

As you can see, my knowledge of Tasks was (and to a certain extent remains) quite limited. That’s why I read books like this.

VanPatten lays out the design of the chapter as exploring three topics:
– The nature of tasks;
– The difference between a Task, an Exercise, and an Activity;
– How the teacher can use Tasks to construct a communicative curriculum.

By this point in the book, we should know that the focus will be on communication, i.e. the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning in a given context for a purpose.

Since the title of the chapter is about Tasks, we can conclude that VanPatten will recommend Tasks as opposed to Exercises and Activities.

Beyond that, check back next week for the discussion and a report on how the conferences went.

CLT Principle 4: Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input – Part 5

Today, we’re finishing Chapter 4 from Bill VanPatten’s book, While We’re On the Topic (ACTFL, 2017). It only took five posts to do it.

As always, VanPatten concludes his discussion with “Implications for Language Teaching”. This chapter has three that could be transformative for language instruction if taken seriously.

“Input should be central to the classroom, not something ‘added on.’ Input must be comprehensible and level-appropriate. Instructors should be talking with and not at learners.”

This alone would transform the language acquisition process for learners in schools. VanPatten is addressing primarily language instructors, and the vast majority teach in some sort of formal classroom setting. Imagine having students who participate because the discussion in the classroom is authentically addressing their interests and needs rather than proceeding apace to “cover” a set amount of material. It can happen. I have experienced it.

Instructors should be proficient enough in the language themselves so that the provision of input and interaction is easy and effortless for them.

This speaks directly to an issue I have contemplated for some time: content competency. I have sometimes wondered if certain teachers are resistant to making their classrooms communicati0n based because they believe (often rightly so) that their own language proficiency is not adequate to remaining in the target language in a way that is understandable to students.

Language teachers do not need to be native speakers or even have “native-like ability” (whatever that is). They do, however, need to have a high enough level of proficiency to conduct the class in the target language and sufficient pedagogical skill to make that language understandable to the students at whatever level.

For years I advocated for comprehension-based teaching and conducted my own classes on that basis. My district invited me to give in-service presentations to other language teachers. However, I often met resistance along the lines of, “But what about the teacher who can only speak at a first-year level? What if they can’t handle the same sort of wide-ranging discussion that you can?” My reply was and is that these teachers need to do one of two things: either get out of the classroom or do whatever it takes to improve their content competence.

Does that seem harsh? Is it not far harsher to subject students to teaching that does not lead to acquisition? To what extent do we sacrifice our students on the altar of allowing the teacher to continue to feel comfortable?

VanPatten suggests that we need to ask the following questions: Do all teachers have the requisite skills to conduct their classes in the L2? (The answer needs to be “yes”.) What are the quality and quantity of input and interaction teachers can provide? (The answer needs to be “high” for both.) Do they have the full range of communicative abilities that allow them to easily and comfortably orchestrate a fully communicative class with their students? (The answer needs to be “yes”.)

Instructors need to demand different materials from publishers and marketers – materials in which input is central and the “syllabus” is built on themes and topics, not vocabulary and grammar.

VanPatten notes the fundamental flaw of current textbooks: “Almost all commercial textbooks repeat the traditional syllabus described earlier in this chapter, and the role of input is limited to ‘input as technique’ to teach vocabulary and grammar.” (2017, p. 74)

It is here that I both hope and despair. Textbook companies respond to the demands of the marketplace. However, that responds tends to be rather slow in education, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. The reason for this is the system. At this level, instructors generally do not order their own materials, districts order them. That in and of itself can cause problems. Let me give an example.

The district in which I worked piloted foreign language textbooks last year. The district chose two or three textbooks for each language and asked certain teachers to use and evaluate these textbooks. The teachers who used the materials for Spanish heritage speakers found both of the textbooks unacceptable. Every single teacher who tried the textbooks wanted nothing to do with either one. The district administration, however, informed them that they had to make a choice. There would be no opportunity to try out and reach a consensus on other materials. So, the teachers chose a textbook but plan not to use it. This is a waste of taxpayer funds, does a disservice to the students, and disregards the professional expertise and experience of the teachers. It also does nothing to change the product offered by the publisher. After all, the textbook was adopted.

On the other hand, both I and my successor in the German program categorically rejected even looking at a textbook. We both understand that a program based on student interests and tailored by the teacher to student needs is far more responsive, student-centered, and effective than a pre-packaged “Scope and Sequence” from a textbook. Had I remained in my position, I would have advocated for money for readers and professional development since we had saved the district thousands of dollars in textbook costs. My hope is that my successor will advocate for those funds.

This is the way to get the attention of publishers: purchase what you truly want and do not purchase anything if it is not what you want. Unfortunately, the system works against this, but it is the way for instructors at the elementary and secondary levels to work for change. VanPatten is a university professor, and professors have greater discretion in choosing materials for their courses, so his experience is different from mine.

I agree with his goal but believe that there will need to be a significant change to the educational system before it can come to fruition.

I recommend that all teachers advocate for what they believe is best for their students based on reading and reflecting on the research. If enough teachers do this, perhaps districts will listen. If enough districts demand something else, then the publishers will listen.

But then, perhaps the more effective solution is simply to bypass the traditional publishers and use materials created and shared by classroom teachers and their students. I intend to remain part of that movement and solution. (Okay, shameless plug here. You can take a look at what I’m doing at www.compellinginput.net.)

CLT Principle 4: Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input – Part 4

Today, we’re continuing with the idea of what constitutes appropriate materials and interaction.

In this chapter of his book While We’re On the Topic, Bill VanPatten addresses a hot issue in the second and foreign language teaching community: authenticity.

I addressed this topic when I considered Eileen Glisan and Richard Donato’s book, Enacting the Work of Language Instruction(ACTFL, 2017). If you are interested in reading my discussions, click here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. At the time, I presented some objections to the generally accepted position on “authentic texts”: the definition is demonstrably flawed, at least two different definitions are employed to justify common practices, the restrictions imposed by the definition do not reflect real-world concepts and practice in the first language, and the principle is often misunderstood and misapplied. Other than that, there’s not much to see here.

VanPatten provides an excellent description of the situation:

Authenticity refers to whether classroom activities and materials use authentic language use [sic] and authentic sources from native-speaking cultures. That is, authentic materials are texts (e.g., websites, ads, newspaper articles) written by native speakers for other native speakers. In some circles of language teaching, there is a push to use authentic materials from the beginning. In some cases, advocates push for an exclusive use of authentic materials and “shun” materials written for the second language learner. (2017, p. 721; emphasis in original)

One inherent danger of the emphasis in the last half of VanPatten’s description is the tendency to turn authentic texts into just another text to be got through rather than using it as comprehensible input in the communication-based classroom.

VanPatten raises but does not answer some very important questions with regard to the use of authentic texts. They parallel and complement my own questions. Here are a few:
1. What kind of authentic text would contain appropriate level input for the first semester learner of Japanese? (VanPatten)
2. Should teachers wait to introduce authentic texts and sources once learners have higher levels of ability with language? (VanPatten)
3. And how would the learner interact with that text in the classroom? (Van Patten)
4. If simplification of text for emergent first language learners is considered both acceptable and authentic, why is it not acceptable for second language learners? (Harrell)
5. Under the given definition, how can a learner ever have an “authentic conversation”, especially if the teacher is not a native speaker? (Harrell)
6. How does the definition of “authentic” in language acquisition improve on the more general understanding of authentic as “genuine”, “not false or imitation: real, actual”? (Harrell; hint: it doesn’t)
7. How does “… giving learners opportunities to learn language and content through participation in interpreting and creating authentic texts” (Haley and Austin, 2014; emphasis mine) fit the definition of “for native speakers by native speakers” (or one of its variants), and how does one account for what we know about interlanguage? (Harrell)
8. To what extent does the position described by VanPatten confuse the outcome (interpreting, expressing, and negotiating the meaning of native-speaker texts) with the means to that end? (Harrell)

Here VanPatten approaches the discussion from a different perspective, that of context and communication. His bottom line is, “… we let what we know about language, communication, language acquisition, and the appropriateness of input drive how we use ‘authentic’ materials.” (2017, p. 72)

I find the implications and ramifications of VanPatten’s position more consistent, more satisfying, and more applicable than those of the wider “language community”. Rather than needing different definitions of “authentic”, we have one that covers visual, audible, and audiovisual texts. Rather than pushing an elitist, exclusive agenda about language and language acquisition, we have an inclusive position. Rather than pushing the text as the driving force, we allow communication and acquisition to drive the experience. Rather than putting real-world, authentic use of language “out there” somewhere, it brings it into the current experience of the learner. Rather than making the classroom a “practice session”, it recognizes the classroom as its own authentic context for communication.

VanPatten could have written far more about authenticity than he did. It is a topic that must be brought continually before language teachers. Instead of accepting the commonly held definition, we need to look at it critically and ask ourselves if it truly “preserves the appearances” (i.e. accounts for all the phenomena). To me, the widely disseminated definition of “for members of a language and culture community for members of that same language and culture community” has been tried in the balance and found wanting. Let’s remove its dominion over the field of language acquisition and give it to another.

Once again, I repeat the advice from Mary Ashcraft in the Advanced Placement® Summer Institute I attended in 2011: “Of course, you use materials created for learners. These become the springboards to ‘authentic resources’ that would otherwise be inaccessible. Let’s not confuse the end with the means.”

Beyond that, though, you recognize that the classroom is its own authentic context, and learners are interacting with “authentic texts” as long as the language in the classroom is real or genuine language used for the purpose of communication (expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning within a context for a purpose other than simply “practicing the language”).

Here is the irony of understanding and accepting the concept of “authentic text” as language informed by the communicative context in which it occurs:

Teachers who use native-speaker texts without regard to their level appropriateness or the communicative context of the particular classroom in which they teach actually render these texts inauthentic.

CLT Principle 4: Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input – Part 3

This is the third part of a look at the fourth principle put forth in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017): Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input (and Interaction).

So far, we’ve discussed what constitutes input (language embedded in a communicative event that the learner attends to for its meaning), what level appropriate means (comprehensible and interesting), what learner engagement looks like (not necessarily language or even verbal), and strategies for making language comprehensible.

Now, we’re taking a look at some areas that engender great discussion and some confusion.

Input is not a technique

This ought not to be an area of conflict, but it is – primarily because of apparently misunderstanding the nature of input. In an article for The Language Educator (Oct/Nov 2014, pp. 24-26), VanPatten writes:

I have hinted at the major challenge that faces teachers when reading about input and output and their roles in second language development. That challenge is resisting the temptation to think that input and output are “techniques” to teach “the same old thing.” What tends to happen is that teachers generally stick to the historically motivated scope and sequence of vocabulary and grammar for language courses and look for novel ways to teach those things. That is, teachers look for input and output activities for teaching ser versus estar in Spanish, or the choice of avoir and etre with the passé composé in French or the case system in Russian. This is not at all what is implied in the roles of input and output in language acquisition.

Once again, VanPatten reminds us:

Input means one and only one thing in language acquisiton: language embedded in a communicative event that the learner attends to for its meaning.

Language is not a technique. A communicative event is not a technique. Attending to meaning is a communicative strategy, not a technique for teaching.

Nonetheless, many try to incorporate input into the traditional syllabus as a “technique” to teach certain grammar points. I have read requests in various online forums and groups for materials like “a story to teach irregular verbs”, “a good reading to teach case endings”, and “a song that teaches indirect object pronouns”. These are definitely cases of trying to put new wine into old wineskins.

We could spend a great deal of time, thought, and energy pursuing the reasons for this misuse of input, but that would be counterproductive. In this instance, the reason is immaterial. We simply have to learn to view input and communication as the centerpiece of the language learning and teaching endeavor, then create curricula reflective of that reality.

VanPatten suggests some areas in which this is happening or can happen:

Immersion programs and content-based instruction
The Natural Approach
Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling (TPRS)
Reading

The post this week is short because I want to take more time to consider another area of discussion: authenticity. We’ll do that next time.

I wish all of my American readers a Happy Independence Day!

CLT Principle 4: Instructors and Materials Should Provide Appropriate Level Input – Part 1

After several weeks of looking at CLT Principle 3 (Language Acquisition is Constrained by Internal and External Factors) in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL: 2017), we are moving on the CLT Principle 4.

It seems to me that this is a principle with which everyone agrees. That does not make it settled and not controversial, however. The differences of opinion arise over what constitutes “input”, what interaction should look like, what an “appropriate level” is, and the nature of the materials that should provide that input.

If we accept the position elucidated by VanPatten in Chapters 1 and 2 that the language itself is the only data that the brain is able to use in constructing a mental representation of the language, i.e. acquiring the language, then VanPatten’s fourth principle is already constrained in terms of materials.

However, just to be clear, VanPatten defines the term input in the context of language acquisition. (It has other meanings in other contexts.)

Input means one and only one thing in language acquisition: language embedded in a communicative event that the learner attends to for its meaning.

This means that anything in a language other than the target language is not input and not useful or usable by the brain for acquisition. It also means that target language that is not understandable is not input. And, it means that understandable target language that is not being used for communication is not input.

Three scenarios illustrate VanPatten’s position. I will paraphrase.

The teacher asks a student, D’ou êtes vous? The student responds, De la Californie. This is an exchange in which the student has attended to the language for meaning, so the French is input. The teacher might follow up with Ah. Mais vous vous trouvez loin de chez vous. The students answer, Oui, mais je vais retourner. The entire encounter was communicative; both teacher and student attended to meaning.

In a different class, the teacher asks the student to repeat the sentence, Je me trouve loin de chez moi. The student dutifully does so. This time, the French is not input because the student was not attending to meaning but simply repeating sounds. Thus, acquisition is not facilitated.

For the third scenario, VanPatten imagines a class in which the teacher simply tells students that trouver normally means “to find”, but se trouver means “to find yourself in the sense of being located somewhere or being in some situation.” Since the explanation was in English, no target language input was provided, so acquisition was not facilitated in any way.

I am adding a fourth scenario that VanPatten does not include:

The teacher begins the very first class with Bonjour, mesdames et messieurs. Je m’appelle Madame Bovary et je suis la professeur de français. Je suis de la Côte d’Ivoire. Vous allez apprendre la langue de la poésie, de la philosophie et de l’amour dans cette classe. Students look at the teacher but do not respond because they have understood nothing of what she said.

Was input provided in this last scenario? It depends. If students were attempting to understand, then input was provided; it simply was incomprehensible and therefore not useful or usable. If students have, for whatever reason, either ceased or not begun to attend to meaning, then no input was provided.

Some might argue that as long as the language is being spoken, some good is being done: students’ ears are being attuned to the sounds of the language, students are getting a feel for the rhythm and melody of the language, just being exposed to the language is somehow beneficial. The question remains: Beneficial for what? Certainly not for acquisition. I’ll have more to say about this later.

The second and third scenarios are very common in public school settings – at least in the United States.

To an extent, they represent different views of what constitutes input. That is why a definition is so important. If you do not accept VanPatten’s position on the first two principles, you will have a different definition of input. However, we are not arguing that point right now. For discussions of the utility of grammar and rote repetition, see VanPatten’s book or my posts on his earlier chapters.

Allow me to finish this post with a personal anecdote.

On Wednesday of the past week, my department had a retirement lunch for me and another faculty member who is retiring. To my surprise and delight, a former student came. This particular student’s love of languages awoke in my German class during the 1998-1999 school year.

Since graduation, he went on to study linguistics and eventually became a creator of “artificial languages”. That is, when a film or TV series needs an alien language, he is one of the people who can create one. (Not every writer is like JRR Tolkien; many of them put in words or short phrases but have no full language, so when their work is translated to the screen, a coherent structure must be provided, and there are people who do that for a living. My former student is one of them.)

While David, my former student, has several languages that he has created, his most famous one is Dothraki for Game of Thrones. When I asked him about the actors and “learning” the language, he said that they take a couple of different approaches. Some of the actors simply want to say their lines. David sends them a recording of their lines, and they imitate the sounds and inflection. End of story. They aren’t even interested in knowing the meaning of the words they are saying except as it impacts the delivery of the lines. This is similar to the situation in which teachers ask students to repeat sentences. Usually it is for the sake of “improving or perfecting the student’s accent”.

Other actors want to know what they are saying and will ask for a translation of the lines. Then they can speak the lines in a way that reflects meaning. This is still not really communication, but it is much more like it than the first situation because the actors are attending to meaning and also listen to other actors for meaning. Given enough time, these actors might actually begin to acquire Dothraki.

So, it is certainly possible to recite in a foreign language without any acquisition taking place. Singers and actors do this all the time. Exposure to a language is not sufficient for acquisition. The input must have a certain quality, what VanPatten calls appropriate level.

We’ll take a look at that in subsequent posts.

Happy Father’s Day to all the fathers and surrogate fathers out there. Teachers are often not simply legally in loco parentis but become surrogate parents and father (or mother) figures. May God bless you for all you do.

CLT Principle 3: Language Acquisition is Constrained by Internal and External Factors – Part 5

So far we have seen that language acquisition is not haphazard nor capricious. It is not unique to each individual. For earlier discussions, click here, here, here, and here.

Various factors, both internal and external, constrain our language acquisition. These constraints involve the nature of language, the nature of acquisition, the nature of data with which the brain can work, affective factors, and more.

These constraints mean that certain instructional practices, strategies, and techniques are more efficacious than others.

Bill VanPatten draws four Implications for Language Teaching from his consideration of the constraints placed upon language acquisition. We’ve already looked at two of them:

The effects of explicit teaching and practice with language are severely limited. Instruction should focus on things that foster acquisition.

We should work with the learner’s natural acquisition processes, not against them.

Today we will look at the final two of these Implications for Language Teaching. (See Bill VanPatten. While We’re on the Topic. ACTFL 2017, pp. 52-54.)

We must educate students, parents, colleagues, and administrators about the nature of acquisition (as well as the nature of language and communication).

Because the concept of providing students with Comprehensible Input as the sole sufficient cause of language acquisition is so radically different from what most students, parents, colleagues, and administrators have experienced in the past, we must educate them on what we are doing.

This is good practice for any teacher. The better the stakeholders understand the process of instruction and the research that lies behind our instructional practices, the more likely they are to accept what we are doing in the classroom. And that is a good thing.

It is also a change from advice that Dr Steven Krashen gave in the early days of promulgating his Comprehensible Input Hypothesis. As Dr Krashen puts it:

I have changed my position on only one issue: At the end of Principles and Practice, I suggest the use of a form of deception – students may think they are acquiring vocabulary or learning subject matter, but unknown to them, they are acquiring because they are getting comprehensible input at the same time. I now think it is very important to make a strong effort to inform students about the process of language acquisition, so they can continue to improve on their own. (Steven Krashen. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. 1982.)

VanPatten suggests that “Knowledge of acquisition helps teachers become advocates for a more appropriate curriculum designed to develop communicative ability.” (2017, p. 53)

How do we accomplish this?

I have attempted to do this in a variety of ways throughout my career. Here are some ideas:

Whenever an administrator stops by, even for a couple of minutes, make a point of thanking them and explaining a bit about what they saw.
Have a checklist of behaviors hanging beside the classroom door and ask every visitor to fill one out. It will help you remember what to do in your instruction, and it will help the visitor know what to look for in your classroom.
Explain language acquisition to your students at the beginning of the year and keep reminding them throughout the year. Make a reminder part of your daily or weekly routine. It doesn’t have to be long – just a sentence, really – but it needs to happen regularly. Alina Filipescu is masterful at this. Her students can explain language acquisition to visitors.
At Back-to-School Night and Open House, explain language acquisition to parents.
At any parent meetings, such as for grade checks, IEPs (Individualized Education Plans), and 504s (another form of individualized instructional plan), reinforce the nature of language acquisition. Talk about what the student is doing to acquire the language rather than the grade. [This is one of the things that bothers me most about meetings with parents and students: everyone is focused on the grade, not the learning or acquisition that should be taking place. Usually the first statement is what grade the student has in the course. That may or may not be relevant, and it certainly is not the most important item.]
Send administrators articles about second-language acquisition. But don’t ask them to read the entire article. Highlight 1-3 key points so that they administrators don’t have to spend a lot of time reading.
Support colleagues no matter where they are in their instructional practices. Find something that you agree on and then share something that you are doing. Remember Aesop’s fable of The Wind and the Sun.

Remember that colleagues and administrators are human beings who are trying to do the best they can. Always assume they mean well. Thank them and do nice things for them. Counsellors in particular have a tremendous influence on which courses students take. Do things that make them think favorably of you and your program.

The chapter (as well as this discussion) ends with what VanPatten believes is the most important Implication for Language Teaching:

Classroom and materials need to be spaces in which learners receive lots of input and have many chances to interact with it.

The nature of acquisition means that language classrooms will often appear more teacher-centered than other classrooms. However, this is not necessarily the case. We need to remember that understandable target language must come from somewhere, and only the teacher has the knowledge and interaction with students to determine with any accuracy whatsoever what they understand and do not understand. (Even this is not always totally accurate, but it is certainly more accurate than any book produced outside the classroom.) Thus, the teacher provides students with level-appropriate comprehensible input.

In addition, we need to remember that interaction with the input, particularly at the lower levels, is not necessarily verbal or even oral. Students can indicate understanding through a variety of gestures, facial expressions, movement, etc. Students (and teachers) can make judicious use of the native language to support and facilitate understanding and further use of the target language. How much native language? As Carol Gaab says, “Just enough to stay in the target language.”

I agree that this last implication is the most important. If we do not provide copious amounts of comprehensible input, students will not have the raw data they need to acquire the language and become proficient in the language. They also need opportunities to develop communicative competence, i.e. opportunities to express, interpret, and negotiate meaning in a specific context for a purpose.

Next week we will take a look at VanPatten’s thoughts on level-appropriate input and interaction.

CLT Principle 3: Language Acquisition is Constrained by Internal and External Factors – Part 1

Today we’re looking at Bill VanPatten’s third Principle of Contemporary/Communicative Language Teaching in the book While We’re on the Topic (ACTFL, 2017).

Before we look into the principle, let’s begin by defining a couple of terms.

Acquisition: Bill VanPatten, Stephen Krashen, and others make a distinction between learning and acquisition. Typically, adherents to this distinction describe acquisition as subconscious, implicit, seemingly effortless, and based on communication (the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning). Learning, on the other hand, is conscious, explicit, requires effort, and is not communicative. This position is controversial, and some make a distinction between short-term and long-term memory rather than learning and acquisition. However, the distinction is helpful when considering the kind of input and instruction to provide in a language course.

Constrain: The verb means to compel something by stricture, restriction, or limitation; to limit or restrict. We see this often and think nothing of it. Our ability to jump is constrained by both internal and external factors, i.e. the strength of our muscles and length of our limbs (internal) as well as the force of gravity (external) limit the height to which we can jump. If we can change the parameters of the internal or external constraints, we can change how high we jump.

VanPatten begins his discussion by describing the traditional process of language instruction and a typical understanding of acquisition: learn some rules or vocabulary, practice, receive correction, and over time learn the language. Teachers, students, and others believe this is the way languages are acquired.

However, generations of students have gone through this process and report things like, “I took four years of Blovish but can’t even understand it when people talk to me.” Language teachers often make statements like, “The only way to truly learn a language is to go where people speak it.”

Which is true?

Obviously, we need to take a new look at second language acquisition, and VanPatten provides an introduction, noting along the way that we have nearly 50 years of empirical research to inform our understanding. Unfortunately, not a lot of that research has managed to make its way into the thinking, planning, and instruction of language teachers.

So, what are some basics about Second Language Acquisition that we need to know?

Second language acquisition is a rich, complex, and dynamic process. Van Patten maintains that is is slow and piecemeal.Some would disagree with this. There are many people who advertise speedy language acquisition. One entrepreneur has a program he calls “Fluent in 3 Months”, although he admits that this is a goal rather than a guarantee.
Part of the discrepancy depends, I believe, on the definition of fluent. VanPatten seems to be talking about high-level proficiency while the purveyors of language learning systems and programs are talking about basic, simple conversation. Someone who wants to learn more should investigate the writings of Steve Kaufmann.

Both VanPatten and Kaufmann agree that comprehensible input is essential to acquisition, and “the traditional methods” will not lead to acquisition or fluency. First language acquisition requires thousands of hours of exposure. A key question is whether second language acquisition requires the same amount of time. [I don’t believe it does, for more than one reason.]

The piecemeal nature of acquisition means that we do not acquire or learn one aspect of language and then move on to something else. No, instead we are adding bits and pieces of language in various categories all the time. We are always working on acquiring the whole language, not just limited aspects of it.
Second language acquisition is stage-like and follows a path not dictated by instruction or external forces. This is part of the internal constraint on language acquisition. Krashen talks about the “Natural Order”. Extensive research in English has revealed that certain items in the language are “early acquired” and others are “late acquired”. The correct kind of instruction may accelerate acquisition, but it cannot change the order of acquisition.VanPatten describes the stages of acquiring the Spanish verbs ser and estar as follows:
Stage 1: No verb
Stage 2: Emergence and use of ser for most contexts
Stage 3: Emergence and use of estar as auxiliary for progressive
Stage 4: Emergence and use of estar as copula for location and adjectives
Learners come to implicitly know more about language than they have been been exposed to.This is a bit of an enigma. How can this happen? How do learners come to know what can and cannot be done in the language without having been exposed to every possibility? VanPatten later in the chapter ascribes this to internal factors.
Almost all L2 learners fall short of native-like competence and abilityThis realization should be freeing. It is neither necessary to achieve native-like ability (including accent) nor embarrassing when we do not. Our job is to become the best non-native speaker we can.

In summarizing this portion of the book, VanPatten states the following characteristics of language acquisition:
– It is slow
– It is piecemeal (i.e. occurs in bits and pieces)
– It is stage-like (i.e. is ordered and sequenced independently of instruction and other factors)
– Instruction does not significantly affect the first three characteristics
– We create mental representation that we couldn’t learn from the environment
– Some kind of non-nativeness seems to be the norm

VanPatten makes one more key statement:

The learner is … in much more control of the process than … teachers and lay people may want to admit

but that control is unconscious.

The next section of this chapter enters seriously controversial territory: the idea of Universal Grammar. So, we’ll take a look at it next time.

CLT Principle 2: Language is Abstract and Complex

Continuing with our look at While We’re On The Topic by Bill VanPatten (Alexandria: ACTFL, 2017), this week we are looking at the second principle of Communicative/Contemporary Language Teaching, namely

Language Is Too Abstract And Complex To Teach And Learn Explicitly

With this principle, VanPatten addresses a key question in language instruction: “What is the nature of language?”

This has been answered in various ways throughout time, and each answer – combined with an understanding of the nature of learning and the nature of acquisition – leads to a different pedagogy.

VanPatten specifically rejects certain views of language. Specifically, he holds that …
– Language is not a collection of rules and structures
– Language is not a closed body of text
– Language is neither simple nor concrete
– Language cannot be taught and learned explicitly

A key contention of VanPatten is that language is not what we find in language textbooks, i.e. it is not the grammar and syntax presented in the typical textbook – even when these are viewed as “rules of thumb” and not absolutes.

VanPatten understands language to be a psychological construct, what he calls a “mental representation” in the mind/brain of the speaker. This construct or mental representation looks nothing like the “rules of grammar” typically presented in textbooks. As VanPatten famously puts it:

What’s on page 32 of the textbook is not what winds up in your head.

As an illustration of this disjunct between psychology and pedagogy, VanPatten considers the issue of identifying the subject of a sentence. In the discussion, the author illustrates the difficulty of articulating an explicit and concrete definition of “subject”, even though most people can identify the subject in a given sentence in their native language.

The mental representation of language that people have in their mind/brain is, according to VanPatten
– abstract
– complex
– implicit

Language is abstract. That is, it cannot be readily described in typical “lay” language. Professionals use abstract constructs to describe language, terms such as “underlying features”, “functional versus lexical categories”, “phrase structures”, and “movement and merge”.

Language is complex. That is, it has many components that can be arranged in various configurations.There are sound systems (with wide ranging variants), words (meaning and structure), syntax (relationships among words), rhythm and tone, intent, and more.

Language is implicit. That is, we do not have conscious knowledge of the contents of our mental representation of language and cannot (easily) articulate what we know even though we know when any given utterance transgresses one of the implicit strictures of our native language.

VanPatten then draws implications for Language Teaching. His first and boldest implication is

Because language is so abstract, complex, and implicit, you cannot teach (or learn) language explicitly

Drawing on his understanding of the nature of language, the nature of acquisition, and the nature of the mind/brain, VanPatten reminds the reader that

communication and language are not the same thing

Furthermore,

explicit rules and paradigms cannot become the abstract and complex system of language because the two things are completely different

The further implication is that teachers cannot teach language but can create a context and environment in which learners acquire a language. That context includes providing learners with large quantities of messages in the target language that they understand and find interesting.

There are researchers who disagree with VanPatten’s position and believe that at least some propositional knowledge (rules and paradigms) can be transmogrified into procedural knowledge (mental representation) and who hold to different versions of “comprehensible input plus”, e.g. the “noticing hypothesis”, the “output hypothesis” and “sociocultural theory”. However, the commonality in all of these is the indispensability and primacy of comprehensible input.

No matter what you may think of additions to comprehensible input, it is important to acknowledge that

Comprehensible Input is the sine qua non of language acquisition.

Followers of VanPatten (and Krashen) believe it is also the non plus ultra of language acquisition. VanPatten’s small book makes a good case for this.

CLT Principle 1: Teaching Communicatively

In today’s post we come to the first principle in Bill VanPatten’s book While We’re On The Topic: Teaching Communicatively Implies a Definition of Communication.

I am tempted to way, “Well, duh!” But far too many people use terms as buzzwords without defining them for others or even knowing themselves what they intend the term to mean.

One constant irritant in this regard is the use of the term “rigor”. It is constantly bandied about in education circles, but few people give any sort of definition for it. “Courses need to be more rigorous!” is a great slogan or catchphrase, but what does that mean?

How many teachers have a coherent philosophy or approach to teaching or language teaching. How many can articulate even a broad outline of a philosophy? How many language teachers can define key terms – or is this, like language, intuitive (i.e. we know what it is, but we can’t define it readily)?

VanPatten opens the chapter with four statements and asks the reader to rate his or her ability as Yes, Sort Of, or Nope. Here are the statements:

I can offer a working definition of communication
I can describe the two major purposes of communication
I understand how the classroom is a “limited context” environment for communication
I can describe/explain how knowledge about communication informs choices and behaviors in terms of language teaching

How did you rate yourself?

Before I read the book, I rated myself very poorly, even though I have studied second language acquisition for years.

Fortunately, VanPatten provides us with an excellent working definition of communication:

Communication is the expression, interpretation, and sometimes negotiation of meaning in a given context. What is more, communication is also purposeful.

Meaning refers to the information contained in a message. This information may be the literal meaning conveyed by the words, but it may also be a “hidden message” beyond the literal. Meaning can be layered.

Expression refers to the production of a message, whether that expression is oral, non-verbal, or some combination.

Interpretation indicates that communication is not one-way. There is always a recipient.

Negotiation acknowledges that communication, i.e. the expression and interpretation of meaning, is not always successful on the first (or tenth) attempt. Participants on both sides of the interchange must work to establish and clarify meaning. We do this all the time.

Context refers to the participants and the setting.

Purpose indicates that there is a goal or objective to communication. As VanPatten puts it: “Just because someone’s lips are moving or their hands are gesturing down’ mean they’re communicating.”

Having defined his terms, VanPatten next addresses the idea of context.

Context places constraints upon our communication. That is, the people and setting (not just physical place) exert significant influence on what we say and how we say it. Important for the teacher is to recognize that the classroom is a context and places constraints on the communication that will take place there.

This concept fits well with the High-Leverage Teaching Practice of creating a classroom discourse community. If communication and language acquisition are to take place in the classroom, we must create a community within the context of schools and students.

The book then moves on to purpose.

The purpose of communication is, according to VanPatten, basically twofold: psychosocial and cognitive-informational. That is, we communicate to establish, maintain, affect, effect, and sever relationships and roles among two or more persons. Or we communicate in order to “express or obtain information, or to learn or do something”. (2017, p. 9)

These two purposes are not mutually exclusive, and they may both be in play at the same time, i.e. a communicative act may be both cognitive-information and psychosocial simultaneously.

VanPatten mentions one other purpose of communication: to entertain.

I believe he fails to give this purpose adequate consideration. Like the other two, it is not exclusive.

The author sums up this section of the chapter with the statement, “Language use without purpose is not communication.”

This leads to an important conclusion:

Language and communication are not the same thing.

On the one hand, we can use language without communicating. For example, if I an actor is memorizing lines for a play, language is being used, but no communication is taking place. On the other hand, we often communicate with a look, a sound, or a gesture that is not language.

The final major section of the chapter is a discussion of implications of a definition of communication for the classroom.

If we maintain that we practice Communicative Language Teaching (which VanPatten maintains is also Contemporary Language Teaching), then communication needs to be taking place in the classroom.

VanPatten asks to key questions:

How much time do instructors and students spend on the expression and interpretation (and negotiation) of meaning?
Is there a purpose to this expression and interpretation of meaning?

ACTFL proposes that, ideally, the teacher and students spend at least 90% of their time in (and outside) the classroom expressing, interpreting, and negotiating meaning IN THE TARGET LANGUAGE.

That last portion of the statement is, unfortunately, necessary. A majority of teachers self reported in a survey that they spend less than half of their class time using the target language. Since we know that the brain is able to acquire a language only from receiving messages in the target language that are comprehended, then we should be spending significantly more time using the target language.

If the answer to the second question is “no”, then no communication is taking place – and neither is acquisition.

In accord with Glisan and Donato’s position that teachers need to abandon the IRE model of interaction and adopt the IRF model*, VanPatten advocates abandoning “display questions” intended to practice language (e.g. vocabulary, grammar points) because they are not communicative and asking “context-embedded” questions.

When I was a student teacher, my master teacher used to say, “Never ask a question that you already know the answer to.”

While this may seem extreme, the underlying principle is sound. If I already know the answer, then I am probably asking students to “practice language”. But if I ask students questions to which I do not know the answer, then we begin to have the expression and interpretation of meaning.

Of course, there are certain circumstances in which asking a question to which I know the answer is appropriate, but those are exceptions, and they have a communicative purpose beyond “practicing language”. For example, I may ask a rhetorical question to get students to think about a topic.

*IRE stands for teacher INITIATES an exchange, student RESPONDS, teacher EVALUATES the response;
IRF stands for teacher INITIATES an exchange, student RESPONDS, teacher gives FEEDBACK and moves the conversation forward.
See Enacting the Work of Language Instruction, “HLTP 2: Building a Classroom Discourse Community” (2017, pp. 42-45)

VanPatten reminds us that “… just because mouths are moving doesn’t mean something is communicative. For an event to be communicative, it must have a purpose that is not language-related but related to one of language use’s two major purposes: psychosocial or cognitive-information. ” (2017, p. 15)

I disagree with the statement only insofar as VanPatten omits the third purpose of language: entertainment.

At the close of his discussion of the first implication of a definition for communication, VanPatten asks the following:

It isn’t easy to imagine gossip in the classroom. But what about entertainment? Are there communicative events in class involving entertainment? (Simply playing music in class does not count.)

My response is that 1) this must be a difference between teaching high school and college, because I have no problem imagining gossip in the classroom; my students do it all the time, and 2) I have spent significant portions of many class periods telling jokes and funny stories to my students in German. I will come to another entertainment piece in a moment.

The second implication of a definition for communication deals with the classroom context.

VanPatten maintains that the context is “fixed” because the participants (teacher and students) and setting (classrooms) do not change. That does not mean, however, that it is unchanging. Students come and go throughout the year, and not all students – or even the teacher – are present every day.

Within this context, VanPatten decries the use of role-playing, an activity that is very popular among teachers.

I disagree to an extent with VanPatten here, but only because I believe he fails to take a special form of role-playing into account.

It is obvious to me that VanPatten is talking about the kind of role-playing in which the teacher assigns something like this: Pretend you are in a restaurant. One of you is the waiter and the other is a customer. You want a steak, but they are out of steak. Have a conversation.

As VanPatten rightly maintains, this sort of role-playing shipwrecks on two points: 1) it is not communicative because the purpose is to practice language, and 2) it is trying to turn the classroom into something it is not (e.g. a restaurant).

However, I believe VanPatten overlooks a special kind of role-playing: what we usually call simply RPG, or table-top Role Playing Games.

I have played RPG scenarios with my students and had a great time doing it. The purpose was entertainment – see why I think VanPatten does not give sufficient attention to this third purpose for communication? Students talk about how much they enjoyed the game even a year or more later.

So, the first objection is dealt with: the purpose is not to “practice language” but to enjoy playing an imaginative game. The second objection is also dealt with: the teacher structures the game in a way that takes into account the classroom context. The teacher remains the teacher while fulfilling the role of GameMaster or DungeonMaster, and students remain students while also being players / player characters in an entertaining game.

I have recently connected with other language teachers who are exploring this aspect of using the target language in the classroom. We may be making “adventures” available to others.

Two other games that can be used in the classroom are “Mafia/Werewolves” and “Breakout”. They, too, have the communicative purpose of entertainment and take place within the classroom context.

If you have not yet looked into using these sorts of games in your instruction, I encourage you to do so.

VanPatten closes the chapter with a reminder:

The definition of communication [expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning within a context for a purpose] informs what it means for a classroom to be communicative.

I hope it informs your practices.